What did Bobby Sands die for?

maccored

The Rook wrote: »

While you're by all means entitles to your opinion I don't agree, he was a criminal, a terrorist, targeting innocent men, women and children, not a political prisoner. I know he's revered etc in some circles, but thankfully I'm not a member of any of those circles

I have family who fought in 1916 (for the Republic before anyone asks!) so I'm definitely not pro British/ Unionist, but Bobby Sands, just a terrorist in my honest opinion, and again that's something I'm entitled to!

"he was a criminal, a terrorist, targeting innocent men, women and children, not a political prisoner."

What? He was found in a house with four guns and then arrested. how you extrapolate criminality and terrorism from that I don't know.

He was the MP for our area at the time. Plus he was a damn good poet.

OhNoYouDidn't

Terrontress wrote: »

Sands was elected in to one of the least populous constituencies in the UK, a constituency in which he never lived. I'm not sure his election was a ringing endorsement by any group of people.

He managed to get 51% of the vote in a constituency he had never lived in, essentially getting 100% of the nationalist vote. Thats a clear endorsement and mandate.

maccored

It wasn't me! wrote: »

If you really believe that there's only ever been one determinant factor in the history of change in northern Ireland and that without it things would be the same as in the 60s, you have absolutely zero understanding of history.

i really believe these kind of arguments go nowhere. I really hate to use that 'if you didnt live it you wont understand it' term, but sometimes you cant logically follow what happens when people get put under the pressures people in the north were put under. When one side dominates and abuses, the other side will use violence. full stop. thats human nature.

charlemont

Bobby Sands was a great man, a true revolutionary, but at the same time a hunger strike was a bit extreme as the prison conditions in 1980's Northern jails is probably better than some of the Republics prisons today in 2010.. Im not being smart about it, but Britain isnt exactly Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, If Bobby and other volunteers were arrested in these countries they would have been shot on the spot..

Wolfe Tone

charlemont wrote: »

Bobby Sands was a great man, a true revolutionary, but at the same time a hunger strike was a bit extreme as the prison conditions in 1980's Northern jails is probably better than some of the Republics prisons today in 2010.. Im not being smart about it, but Britain isnt exactly Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, If Bobby and other volunteers were arrested in these countries they would have been shot on the spot..

It was not about the conditions, they wanted to be treated as prisoners of war, not criminals.

xflyer

Never had an ounce of sympathy for them. It's easy to forget at the time that many people were as sickened by the PIRA as supported them. Particularly in the South. There does seem to a tendency among younger people with Republican sympathies who never lived through the trouble to romanticise the IRA and their actions.

But for the benefit of those suffering from amnesia. Here's a few reminders of Bobby Sands stood for:

The Guildford bombings, 5 people dead in from no warning bombs.

The Birmingham bombings, 21 dead

Both above are remembered for the wrongful imprisonment of innocent people. Rarely remembered are those slaughtered and maimed by the IRA.

The La Mon restaurant bombing, inadequate warning. Many were burnt to death.

What about 'Bloody Friday'. 22 bombs nine dead, anyone remember the famous sequence where a fireman is seen picking up a shattered torso with a shovel.

There there's Enniskillen, Warrington etc etc etc. It goes on and on, indiscriminate bombing, assassination, intimidation a whole sickening catalogue of violence.

Make you proud to be Irish doesn't it?

Whatever the original reason for the IRA, whatever the cause. They had become ruthless terrorists very quickly. Fanatical enough to starve themselves to death in for something relatively trivial, knowing too that their actions would result in more, violence more death, more terror.

I like many other would like a United Ireland but without slaughtering men, women and small children.

Heroes??????????

Don't bother replying with a list of British/Loyalist atrocities. I'm not interested. They weren't done in our name. We Irish fancy ourselves better than that but even now wherever we go in the world being Irish is associated with terror and murder.

Thank you Bobby Sands and your friends for that legacy.

If you want proof what they did was wrong and didn't work. Just take a look at what's going on now. The peace process, normal politics with the IRA as history. No one needed a single bomb or bullet to get to that. Just patience, diplomacy and time.

Wolfe Tone

If you want proof what they did was wrong and didn't work. Just take a look at what's going on now. The peace process, normal politics with the IRA history. No one needed a single bomb or bullet to get to that. Just patience, diplomacy and time.

Thats simply wrong. Why would they talk with the nationalists? Much easier to burn em out and stuff them in ghettos.

lugha

maccored wrote: »

i really believe these kind of arguments go nowhere. I really hate to use that 'if you didnt live it you wont understand it' term, but sometimes you cant logically follow what happens when people get put under the pressures people in the north were put under. When one side dominates and abuses, the other side will use violence. full stop. thats human nature.

We didn't need to live there. We simply had to listen to what the nationalists there were saying. And at that time, and until well after the ceasefire, the SDLP was the primary voice of nationalists. Sands election was simply a consequence of the British making a martyr of him, thereby giving propaganda ammunition to republicans, something they have done a surprising number of times since 1916.

Of course at that time Bobby and the lads fancied that they were entitled to decree that they were the true government and army of Ireland, despite been plainly told that they weren't. So we Southerners were and are very much entitled to stick our oar in.

OhNoYouDidn't

xflyer wrote: »

If you want proof what they did was wrong and didn't work. Just take a look at what's going on now. The peace process, normal politics with the IRA as history. No one needed a single bomb or bullet to get to that. Just patience, diplomacy and time.

Please tell me that is a wind up?

xflyer

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats simply wrong. Why would they talk with the nationalists? Much easier to burn em out and stuff them in ghettos.

In fact you are wrong. They would have, they did. They talked to the SDLP for years. They talked to the Irish government and they secretly talked to the IRA.

Are you going to address the rest of my post at all?

No, thought not!

OhNoYouDidn't

xflyer wrote: »

In fact you are wrong. They would have, they did. They talked to the SDLP for years. They talked to the Irish government and they secretly talked to the IRA.

Are you going to address the rest of my post at all?

No, thought not!

AFTER the IRA ran amock. No-one was talking to the nationalists pre 74.

Wolfe Tone

xflyer wrote: »

In fact you are wrong. They would have, they did. They talked to the SDLP for years. They talked to the Irish government and they secretly talked to the IRA.

Are you going to address the rest of my post at all?

No, thought not!

What ONYD said.


As for the rest of your post I cant be bothered doing that for the umpteenth time on here.

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the larger scale, I am not a big believer in dying for your country.

NTM

Why then did you enlist? Or is it just your own country you object to dying for?

As for the Hunger Strikes, I remember them well. I can't say for sure they were or were not worth it but it was a massive moment in history for everyone in Northern Ireland. I was still at school and that period is still etched in my memory.

It also was not strictly a Republican event, and a lot of Nationalists were angry at Thatcher at that time and it really brought a lot of moderate nationalists more solidly behind Nationalist cause for a united Ireland. What a lot of people do not consider is that the Civil Rights era was still fresh in peoples memory and Bloody Sunday had only happened 8 years prior. It's also worth noting that this was not isolated to he IRA, members of the INLA also took part in the hunger strikes.

It sent a massive message to ordinary British people also about just how serious a lot of IRA volunteers were in their commitment, a real watershed moment, that defines the 80's for a lot of people in Northern Ireland.

xflyer

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

AFTER the IRA ran amock. No-one was talking to the nationalists pre 74.

Again not true, you really need to check your history. The British negotiated with the IRA twice and there were cease fires in '72 and in '75. I don't even mention the contacts with the SDLP and the Irish government.

There are some excellent books on the subject I suggest you buy a couple.

MUSSOLINI:

As for the rest of your post I cant be bothered doing that for the umpteenth time on here.

Yes I thought so, the reality of the IRA's actions is uncomfortable isn't it? Would you like it to be airbrushed out of our history?

Funny thing though, ex IRA friends of mine, (active IRA, not pub warriors), admit they went too far with some of it. It seems they can face up to it.

Wolfe Tone

xflyer wrote: »

MUSSOLINI:Yes I thought so, the reality of the IRA's actions is uncomfortable isn't it? Would you like it to be airbrushed out of our history?

Funny thing though, ex IRA friends of mine, (active IRA, not pub warriors), admit they went too far with some of it. It seems they can face up to it.

In fairness I think anyone familiar with my postings will know that I have stated such a million times, and have oft articulated a view that they should have stuck to ops such as the warrenpoint ambush and the bishopsgate bombing.

OhNoYouDidn't

xflyer wrote: »

Again not true, you really need to check your history. The British negotiated with the IRA twice and there were cease fires in '72 and in '75. I don't even mention the contacts with the SDLP and the Irish government.

There are some excellent books on the subject I suggest you buy a couple.

Ok, 72 not 74. But the point remains, it was the advent of direct rule that led to any change in civil rights and negotiations. Stormont had no intention of behaving.

Put another way, would apartheit south africa have grown out if it without the international pressure?

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Ok, 72 not 74. But the point remains, it was the advent of direct rule that led to any change in civil rights and negotiations. Stormont had no intention of behaving.

Put another way, would apartheit south africa have grown out if it without the international pressure?

You said 74, can't have it both ways. The British government was talking for years with nationalists.

marienbad

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I dont think the civil rights campaign would have ever achieved anything without force.


If it wasnt for the PIRA nationalists would be living the same as they where in the 60s. Thats my belief.

Why would you say that, the Deep South, South Africa, Poland,E,Germany and the whole of the east bloc have changed beyond recognition,

Why would Ireland be any different, it is a tenable proposition that all the civil rights gains could have been achieved without the violence and the consequent polarisation of communities that have made the prospect of a united Ireland as distant as ever.

Is it a coincidence that the two entities ,ETA and PIRA that espoused a physical force philosophy have made the least progress towards their ultimate goals ?

Terrontress

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Ok, 72 not 74. But the point remains, it was the advent of direct rule that led to any change in civil rights and negotiations. Stormont had no intention of behaving.

Put another way, would apartheit south africa have grown out if it without the international pressure?

Did Gerry Fitt not get elected to Westminster in the mid sixties?

Of course, there were those who didn't like his brand of nationalism so they ripped up his wedding photos and set his house on fire. Perhaps you subscribe to a similar viewpoint so see the world as beginning in 72.

irishh_bob

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I'm not suggesting this. You're completely failing to grasp the concept that history is not sedentary. You really believe that without an armed campaign, absolutely nothing else would have happened to make ground, that in fifty years no conversations would be had, no different political perspectives would arise and absolutely no movements would have been made? If you really believe that there's only ever been one determinant factor in the history of change in northern Ireland and that without it things would be the same as in the 60s, you have absolutely zero understanding of history.

opressive states never adopt more benign approaches towards other countries or minoritys domestically without being hit over the head with a sledge , people like to potray nelson mandella as some sort of gandhi figure but the reality is the ANC used violence all the time , no victimised state or minority ever realised equality by simply speaking politley or trying to appeal to their opressors generous side , it simply isnt how the world works

i wouldnt vote sinn fein as i live in leinster but i can see why so many nationalists in northern ireland felt they had no one else to turn to but the IRA for many decades , they felt ( with good reason ) they couldnt trust thier official goverment and the southern goverment offered nothing to them but platitudes for the most part , it is absurd to place the likes of bobby sands under the same headline as a real criminal like john gilligan or fat freddy , he was of course a violent man but then again , he was up against a state which was more than willing to use violence and institutionalised discrimination

maccored

From a personal point of view, when you say

lugha wrote: »

the SDLP was the primary voice of nationalists.

you kind of prove that you are obviously mistaken to believe

We didn't need to live there.

Thats just imo.

lugha

maccored wrote: »

From a personal point of view, when you say ...

Do you dispute that the SDLP had greater electoral success than Sinn Fein before and for a time after the ceasefire ?

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

Did Gerry Fitt not get elected to Westminster in the mid sixties?

Of course, there were those who didn't like his brand of nationalism so they ripped up his wedding photos and set his house on fire. Perhaps you subscribe to a similar viewpoint so see the world as beginning in 72.

Gerry Fitt was singing a rather different tune in the mid 1960's compared to later on.

Fitzerb

KeithAFC wrote: »

You said 74, can't have it both ways. The British government was talking for years with nationalists.

Just to set the record straight.

The first real contact of any meaning with the IRA was through a Dr John O Connell (FF) who ws dealing directly with Wilson and Rees and also talking to the O Bradaigh of the IRA. There was a secert meeting set to take place in Dublin between all the parties in Inchicore. I am not sure if it actually happened, and if my memory is serving me right it was really the hard stance by Crosgrave in Dublin that scuppered any movement.

Manic Moran

Why then did you enlist? Or is it just your own country you object to dying for?

There's a difference between signing a dotted line and saying that something is worth taking a risk for, and consciously saying 'You know, I'll embark upon a course of action which I know if it succeeds, will result in my certain death.'

I think the latter is a bit daft, and there is only a very small range of circumstances where it should be considered, such as a direct and immediate effect of saving another's life ("Here, young woman with a life ahead of you, take my life jacket as this ship sinks"). After all, the goal is that at the end of my term of service, I'm still alive!


NTM

maccored

lugha wrote: »

Do you dispute that the SDLP had greater electoral success than Sinn Fein before and for a time after the ceasefire ?

no. I'd simply say that many areas didnt have time for them. Im sure there were many who supported the armed struggle but voted sdlp to avoid having the ruc harrasing the crap out of them every 5 mins.

but then again, Im sure that kind of thing was happening every day where you came from, since you've already said you dont really need to have any understanding of northern life to have some kind of grasp of how people react to such things.

Terrontress

maccored wrote: »

no. I'd simply say that many areas didnt have time for them. Im sure there were many who supported the armed struggle but voted sdlp to avoid having the ruc harrasing the crap out of them every 5 mins.

but then again, Im sure that kind of thing was happening every day where you came from, since you've already said you dont really need to have any understanding of northern life to have some kind of grasp of how people react to such things.

I can't see how putting an x in a different place in the ballot box would have the ruc harrass you.

The fact is that electoral success for the Republican movement only began once they stopped shooting, bombing, kneecapping. People did not want that violence carried out in their name.

Fratton Fred

irishh_bob wrote: »

opressive states never adopt more benign approaches towards other countries or minoritys domestically without being hit over the head with a sledge , people like to potray nelson mandella as some sort of gandhi figure but the reality is the ANC used violence all the time , no victimised state or minority ever realised equality by simply speaking politley or trying to appeal to their opressors generous side , it simply isnt how the world works

So would you say that the IRA's campaign was more successful than the civil rights movement in the US?

What about Indian independence, or the fall of communism and the reunification of Germany?

It would have been political suicide for any British government to give in to the IRA whilst they were bombing pubs, train stations and shopping centres and I believe that the IRA did more harm than good and certainly extended the troubles.

Wolfe Tone

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Brits give in to the demands in the end anyway? All except one I think.

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Brits give in to the demands in the end anyway? All except one I think.

They did, prior to the deaths of the last six men I believe, but the army council ordered them to continue to maximize the publicity.